Tag: Buss

Death Upon Trump and Mr. Bič

Buss argues that manners are vital to Kantian ethics as appearing respectful is to treat someone in a way that acknowledges their intrinsic value. But Buss also acknowledges that there are some key differences between manners and morals for instance manners encourage us to be agreeable, manners are about appearances, and manners are culturally relative. These differences are notable, but do not undermine manners’ moral significance.

While manners might not be synonymous with morals, the two ideals are closely connected as “making oneself agreeable to others is not only an end in itself; it is also, and more importantly, a means to treating them with respect” (798). In other words, Kant states that to act morally, all people must be viewed as an end in and of themselves not merely as a means to an end. Manners help promote this view through the fact that “good manners, then, not only inspire good morals. They do so by constructing a conception of human beings as objects of moral concern” (800).

Moreover, Buss also mentions that “social disharmony could not fail to adversely affect people’s willingness to regulate their behavior according to certain principles of justice” (799) for three reasons. First, people who are angry and resentful are less likely to help others. Second, people who are disagreeable alienate themselves from others and don’t care about their wellbeing. Finally, people who aren’t in the habit of treating others with respect are not conditioned to seeing people’s inherent worth. Therefore, Buss states that morals are significant for Kantian ethics as they are necessary to promote and cultivate the respectful treatment of all humans.

Wishing Death Upon Trump

Are individuals justified in wishing death upon trump? 

Trump does / did lots of bad, morally wrong shit. Lots of people think the world would be better off without him in it, and some even wish for his death. Is this morally wrong through Buss’ framing?

Our group thinks that there is an important distinction between wishing something would happen and verbalizing that wish. One is a thought while the other is an action that has an effect on others. We’re going to focus on the implications of verbalizing these wishes, because that’s what we’ve deemed most applicable to Buss’s theory. Manners are acting in a way that may not necessarily be in line with your thoughts due to social norms and protocols. Manners are a method of appearing respectful to others. We do this to exhibit that we view other people as ends, rather than just a means to an end. 

It is impolite to verbalize a death wish for anyone because it disregards that people are ends in themselves. Buss believes that regardless of what a person has done, it is still impolite to be rude to them, because it is displaying that you don’t care about their life or acknowledge their intrinsic value as a person. Even though Trump has shown a complete disregard for the humanity of others, Buss still claims that we should extend that nicety/formality to him.

Just because it is impolite, does this mean that it is also immoral? Buss would say yes, it is immoral, because treating people as a means to an end is not acknowledging their special dignity. Every person has inherent value, and we act politely because we directly acknowledge that they are worthy of respect (802). According to both her and Kant, all people deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of whatever unjust or immoral actions they may have taken themselves. To treat another person any other way is thus immoral.

Mr. Bič

In this problem, we are introduced to a man who works at an international company. At this company it is customary to refer to people via their last name. This man, who’s last name is Bič, is from Czech Republic and most of the people he works with are from the United States. When his American coworkers say his name it sounds a lot like Mr. “Bitch”. Many of the people who work with them do not wish to use this to refer to him as they work from home and are around their families for most of the work day. At first his coworkers called him Mr. Birch but he felt slightly offended and corrected them which led them to request a new representative from the company. Due to the drastic difference in time zones he is the only one capable of working with them. This management has pressured him to accept being called Mr. Birch but he believes that this is unjust and he might even have grounds to file a discrimination complaint.

By not referring to Mr. Bič by his proper name, the Americans are not only disrespecting him but also the company custom of calling people by their last name. Buss states that “good manners, then, not only inspire good morals. They do so by constructing a conception of human beings as objects of moral concern” (800). This shows, for both Buss and Kant, that when his coworkers choose to not use his proper name they are not treating him as an object of moral concern which means they are treating him as a pure means. Buss shares their belief that “social disharmony could not fail to adversely affect people’s willingness to regulate their behavior according to certain principles of justice” (799). This statement tells us that by not using Mr. Bič’s proper name they are pushing him towards being resentful by not treating him as though he has inherent value by refusing to call him by his name.

In Buss’s article, she makes the argument that manners are very important especially within Kantian ethics, this situation Mr. Bič has found himself in shows the clashing of two different cultures. In his culture, Mr. Bič means “the whip”. Even though the American staff feels as if they are breaking their own moral code by using a perceived curse word in front of their families they are actually disrespecting Mr. Bič and the company custom of using a person’s last name. Discussing this particular situation with their families could easily solve any moral code they think they are breaking by using his real name while also granting him and the company custom the amount of moral concern they are entitled to.

Synthesis

Both of these problems have to do with disrespecting a person by not acknowledging their intrinsic value. Though one is on a greater scale of wishing death upon someone, and one is on a smaller scale of mispronouncing someone’s name, both are immoral because ultimately, treating someone disrespectfully means viewing them as a means rather than an end. Even in a case like the first one, where the person in question has committed immoral acts themself, it is not up to us to judge how that person should be treated. At the end of the day, we are all human beings and all human beings have an inherent value, thus making them worthy of respect. 

What To Do About My Terribly Dysfunctional Family

WIBTA for not apologizing to smothering in-laws?

TL;DR: This woman is having her first child with her husband. The husband’s parents have never really paid them any attention until they found out that their son and daughter in-law were going to have a child. So, the parents began involving themselves into much of their kids’ lives; Often giving their opinion about decisions that are not theirs to make and imposing themselves upon their kids’ lives. It has gotten to the point that both the husband and wife have told the parents to back off, yet they do not and continue to impose their wishes and opinions on the lives of their kids. One day, the newly pregnant wife was minding her own business and the parents showed up and began berating the wife. She couldn’t take it any more and lost her temper, blowing up on the parents and telling them that they are not welcome around her, her family, and her house. The parents ended up leaving hesitantly and other family members from the husband’s family are demanding an apology from the wife. The husband thinks that she should not apologize and the wife is wondering if she is an a-hole for not apologizing. 

In the above scenario, both the wife and the smothering in-laws have both failed to treat each other respectfully. The wife shouted for the in-laws to leave and the in-laws called the wife an “ungrateful bitch” and were trying to control the wife’s entire pregnancy. While both are in the wrong, our advice for the wife stems from Buss’ moral philosophy based on mutual respect and treating others with dignity. Buss writes, “to treat someone ‘with respect’ is to treat her in a way that acknowledges her intrinsic value, or ‘dignity.’ This is a value she has no matter what her deeds and accomplishments may be; it is tied to what she is, not to what she has done” (797).

Though the husband’s parents acted in ways that irritate the wife, Buss advises that the wife should still treat them with dignity and respect because they still have intrinsic value, even though she might think their actions do not. The in-laws certainly treated the wife without dignity, but the wife’s response should be to apologize. When the wife snapped back at the in-laws she failed to acknowledge their dignity in that moment. It is for this reason that regardless of what the in-laws had done, and whether or not it was justified, the wife should apologize. Similarly for the in-laws, regardless of the wife’s actions, they too need to apologize. Our advice is to then have a calm discussion with the in-laws in which the wife apologizes for her yelling, and then facilitates a discussion about her and her husband’s needs and how they alone should make the decisions about their child in order to prevent future situations like this.

AITA for refusing to hug my cheating mum?

TL;DR: This individual found out that her mother was cheating on her dad with another man that she had met through a mutual friend. The mother has been sending explicit messages and photos back and forth with the other man without her father knowing. The individual confronted her mother and her mother promised that she would stop. Eventually the mother told the father but had omitted the truth about the types of messages being sent to the other man. A month passes and the individual finds that her mother is still sending messages, so the daughter confronts her again. The mother swears on her grandchildren that she will stop, but she does not stop. A week later, her mother asks for a hug, but the daughter cannot and has not forgiven her for manipulating her father and consistently lying, so she politely denies the hug from her mother. The mother then becomes angry and storms out of the room. The daughter doesn’t want a relationship with her cheating mother and has been informed from her father that her mother now hates her. The daughter is wondering if she is the a-hole for not wanting to hug her mother.

Buss’s main argument, in relation to Kant’s philosophy, demonstrates that morality is the result not merely of agreeableness, but in demonstrating respect and dignity for others. Just as we would want for ourselves, we too should show respect through societally agreed upon activities and events that quickly establish a mutual groundwork of human deference. Morality does not come from simply performing these actions but in genuinely conveying and meaning to show respect and caring of others, again, as we would expect for ourselves. In this particular situation, it is clear to see the mother is not respecting anyone in her family by continuing to flirt with another man. This can be seen from multiple perspectives and each view results in the same conclusion; the mother’s actions are both immoral and disrespectful to her family members as well as herself.

However, regarding the author of the post, in answering this question, “am I the asshole for not hugging my mother,” Kant and Buss would most likely agree that the daughter is also demonstrating immoral behavior. While her actions may be warranted due the mothers immoral behavior, the daughter is responsible for her own actions which she can justifiably choose, unlike her mother, to take the moral high ground. Personal emotions may prevent her from physically showing affection, withholding this affection will not solve her problems, only exacerbating them, demonstrated in the mothers tantrumatic response.

Although a less favorable path, the daughter should apologize and should try to come to a solution of talking with her mother rather than withholding affection as an incentive for her to stop cheating as this demonstrates very little respect or dignity. As Buss states, “human beings deserve to be treated with respect, that they are respectworthy, that is, that they have a dignity not shared by those whom one does not bother to treat with such deference and care” (Buss, 801). Whether or not the mother responds with moral actions is unpredictable but according to Buss and Kant, moral action dictates the daughter should own up to her mistake, openly voice her concerns, frustrations, issues with her mother, and eventually accept the mistake and person for who her mother is.

Mundane Morality: Sarah Buss on Respect

The first prompt we are discussing is from the Reddit post “WIBTA for not apologizing to smothering in-laws?” This post is written by a bride and discusses how she is fighting with her in-laws. She writes that, because her in-laws have said and done multiple extremely rude things, she sprayed her mother-in-law with water from a hose and is wondering if she should apologize or not.

Buss takes a Kantian deontological approach to moral significance. She believes moral significance is derived from manners and their use within; appearance, cultural relativism, and being agreeable. Concerning this specific reddit post Buss would believe, through manners and appearance, that the bride is in the wrong and should apologize to her in-laws even if they were rude first. Buss fundamentally believes that, “To treat people with respect is to act in a way that acknowledges their dignity, and to act this way because they have dignity (802).

Even though the in-laws might have been rude first and were not being polite or respectful, the bride is further increasing the disrespect by escalating the conflict (spraying with a hose). She is also not acknowledging her in laws with their innate “dignity,” choosing to see their actions in the worst light possible instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, Buss wrote previously that “The point of good manners is to create a certain appearance, to show others that one does not care overly much for one’s own dear self (799)”. The bride did not apologize by adhering to manners to “create a certain appearance”, the bride is then exhibiting the opposite of “not car[ing] overly much for one’s dear self” which reveals a more self-interested nature rather than one of benevolence, which Buss believes is central to manners and appearance. Since the bride did not apologize to her in-laws the bride is not only not treating her in laws with their innate respect/dignity but is revealing she cares more for her wants then their wants. The bride’s actions exhibit how her manners do not give her a good appearance and are therefore are morally wrong.

The second prompt is focused on the Reddit post, “AITA for telling my friend that I don’t care about her sexual orientation”? This post deals with an individual that has come out as lesbian to their friend group. This individual is lesbian and has conversations with the author of the post in which she tells them to explore their sexuality and has asked, what the author believes are inappropriate questions. The author told her that she does not care about her sexual orientation, which hurts the individual who then accused the poster of being a “closet homophobe”.

In order to determine if the person is morally right to say that they don’t care about the individual’s sexual orientation, we will use Sarah Buss’ perspective of Kantian deontology with a focus on manners and their moral significance. Buss believes that in order to be polite, one must treat the other as an object of respect. To make her argument that manners are morally significant, Buss states that manners are different from morality as they encourage people to make themselves agreeable which acknowledges one’s dignity. She says that “people have a basic moral obligation to make themselves agreeable to others,” and that “making oneself agreeable to others is not only an end in itself; it is also, and more importantly, a means to treating them with respect” (798).

In relating these quotes to the example, Buss would say that when the author of the prompt says they don’t care about the individual’s sexual orientation, it is a way of them not making themselves agreeable to others, thus is morally wrong. In addition, Buss says that “to treat someone ‘‘with respect’’ is to treat [them] in a way that acknowledges [their] intrinsic value, or ‘‘dignity.’” (797). By saying that you don’t care about another person’s sexual orientation, you are not showing them respect, as well as not acknowledging their dignity. Instead, it is making it seem as if you do not value the person. That the person’s feelings and thoughts are not valid; that they don’t even matter in the first place. To make one agreeable is to show consideration, which would make people less inclined to harm others, care more about people’s well-beings, and be conditioned to regard people with the dignity they deserve (800).

Although the poster is well within their rights to not, for example, attend a political protest in support of gay marriage, they are actively disparaging their friend’s intrinsic choices and preferences unnecessarily by verbally attacking them. The lack of agreeability that the author seems to have would result in the opposite of this and would lead to an immoral life, one that is severely impoverished. The author in this scenario needs think more about how their actions affect those around them – even if the issue is not significant to the poster, it clearly means a lot to their friend.

Summary

Often, the most significant challenge with moral philosophy comes from the fact that there are usually multiple individuals involved in any issue, each with their own moral preferences, predispositions, goals and worries. In both of these cases, it’s possible to see both sides of the argument. For the first, it’s possible that the poster had been experiencing years of mentally exhausting comments from their in-laws, and out of pure, instinctual frustration they pointed their hose in their mother-in-laws direction. This action still isn’t morally admirable, but adding different levels of context can help some justify different moral situations. The beauty (or downfall, for some) of deontological ethics comes from its relative certainty on some issues – although there are many things that are probably still immoral that are not “banned” by its standards, it takes clear and definite stances on some issues.

As Amy Olberding has previously shown us, a significant amount of “moral” action occurs in the arena of everyday life – the small moments between people that, while potentially insignificant on their own, build up to define the way people feel about each other and morality in general. Her argument is designed to emphasize the importance of manners – by mindfully acting in a way that signals to others that you care about their dignity enough to be polite, humans send each other constantly reinforcing messages that they should each continue to care about each other.

Buss reinforces this argument, but takes the opposite approach by relying on Kantian arguments about the importance of treating rational beings as ends themselves and with respect (as they are an equally autonomous being). For her, the respect that manners convey is the exact same as the respect that morality in general creates – because of this, being ill mannered towards someone is as bad as being more actively immoral. In the cases discussed, there is no one right answer. However, in both cases, they require the poster to put aside their pride and choose to directly express their respect for others. They don’t have to cave in and take their side, but they have an obligation to each other, and themselves, to treat the people around them with as much respect as possible.

Kantian Ethicists Subscription to the Golden Rule: A Quick and Simple Guide to the Collective Deontology

Golden Rule:
Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Prompt 1: My boyfriend wants to follow me and live with me after he graduates from his university, but I’m not sure if I want to be responsible for changing his career trajectory and have him move to a new town. But at the same time I still want to be with him.

In this scenario, we have a girlfriend and boyfriend who are very close, as they should be in a relationship. The boyfriend wants to stay with the girlfriend after he finishes college. The girlfriend however does not feel comfortable changing her boyfriend’s life and career to stay in the relationship. However she still likes being with him and wants to stay in the relationship. Relationships are a huge factor in our life, and we believe that in order to gain a full philosophical role that adheres to manners, we believe that she should stay with her boyfriend.

Although Buss and Olberding differ for their reasons behind manners’ role within a given moral framework, they can both agree that an important component of etiquette is establishing and maintaining the appearance. For Buss, the appearance is meant to serve as a selfless act for which true acknowledgement of the other takes place. Specifically, acknowledging the other’s intrinsic value, or dignity (Buss 796). Regardless of how an individual feels about another, they are rational beings and thus deserving of respect. And by appearing respectful in behaving with manners, we thereby directly express the respect we have for others.

With that in mind, the partner of the boyfriend has a relatively straightforward approach to their dilemma. In order to show the boyfriend respect, Buss argues that the partner needs to be agreeable. In this scenario, that would endorse a more passive and accepting approach from the partner. The fact that the partner wants to stay with the boyfriend makes the decision quite simple. The partner should listen and ultimately agree with the boyfriend’s plea to stay together because his value would be acknowledged as a result. Moreover, the relationship may also strengthen because the boyfriend would feel recognized and more importantly, entrusted. Therefore, I would recommend the partner prioritizes the relationship and stays with the boyfriend.

Prompt 2: I have a friend who is part of the LDS church and does not believe in gay marriage (I definitely do). We have been friends since we were in kindergarten, and of course at that time we didn’t think about these differences. Should I not be friends with him since he doesn’t value LGBTQ+ rights?

Our society is one of manners and courtesy. This means that in essence, we have a code of rules that we have set in society. On this prompt, we see two friends with differing views on gay marriage and LGBTQ+ rights. One of the friends is a member of the LDS church, an organization known for their lack of respect for the LGBTQ+ community. Should they continue to be friends even though they can’t agree on this political issue? We believe that in this situation, respect is paramount. Thus, the individual belonging to the LDS church should have a conversation with their friend about the issue. Regardless of whether they decide to end the relationship, we believe both individuals should be treated with respect in the process.

One of the most critical components of manners – otherwise known as etiquette or courtesy – is how an individual presents themselves. A follower of Kantian moral philosophy, Buss believes that every rational being, humans included, are worthy of respect and should be treated as such through the act of manners. Manners, Buss believes, are a matter of good morals; to interact with another individual without proper manners is to act immorally. As a result, our response to the matter of friendship with a member of the LDS church is fairly straightforward. If you would like to act with good manners, the suggested course of action is to remain friends with this individual for ending the friendship abruptly would be considered rude, especially if the individual asking this question has never conversed with their friend about the topic of valuing LGBTQ+ rights.

This being said, we make this suggestion only on the assumption that the individual asking this question would not be directly harmed by continuing this friendship. This is to say, if the individual is a member of the LGBTQ+ community, of which this possible friend does not value, then our advice would then be for the individual to end the friendship but to explain to their former friend why the friendship is ending. The reality is that respect and manners are a two-way street; you can treat someone with good manners all you want but if the other individual is not doing the same for you (not treating you with respect as a member of the LGBTQ+ community), then you are bringing harm unto yourself by letting yourself be treated with less respect than you deserve. You owe it to yourself to ask to be treated with respect, even if that means ending the friendship; we only ask that you still treat your former friend with respect by letting them know why you’re choosing to let go of what was once a good relationship.

We based our moral advice here on one primary notion: that each and every human being has inherent value because they are human. Thus, everyone deserves and should be treated with respect. Even in scenarios where one may need to be blunt or even confrontational with a friend or colleague, one must always keep respect in mind; it should be at the forefront of every interaction, no matter the circumstances. This is not to say, however, that one should just be a pushover – one should also expect to be respected by others. It is moral to treat others with respect, but it is not immoral to expect that same respect back. It is also worth noting that respect, manners, and etiquette can still be maintained during arguments, debates, and confrontations. This principle is how we decided upon what moral advice to give to the people in the two situations above – as long as you are making decisions with the humanity and value of other people in mind (as well as showing this through your actions) you will almost certainly be behaving in a way that is moral.